It is known that falls represent a leading cause of non-fatal injuries in the United States (Cost of Injury, 1989). In 1985, for example, falls accounted for an estimated 21% of non-hospitalized injured persons (11.5 million people) and 33% of hospitalized injured persons (783,000 hospitalizations). In addition 9% of fatalities (12,866 deaths) were related to falls. Some estimates have said that the cost of fall related injuries in the United States in 2000 was approximately $20 billion dollars.
A number of epidemiological studies report a drastic increase of fall incidence rate in the population over the age of 65, suggesting a direct relationship between aging and the frequency of kill events (Sorock, 1988; Healthy People 2000, 1990; Injury Prevention: Meeting the Challenge, 1989; National Safety Council. 1990: Grisso et al., 1990; DeVito et al., 1988: Waller, 1985; Waller. 1985: Sattin et at., 1990). Although the exact incidence of non-fatal falls is difficult to determine, it has been estimated that approximately 30% of all individuals over the age of 65 have at least one fall per year (Sorock, 1988).
When the dramatic growth in the number of people over 65 and their proportion in the population is considered, this represents a significant health problem. By some estimates, this age group currently makes up 12.4% of the U.S. population, with a projected increase to 19.6% by the year 2030 (Federal Interagency Forum on Aging-Related Statistics, 2004). Of particular note is the growth of the “oldest old” (i.e. those people over 75). In the decade between 1990 and 2000, the greatest growth in the over 55 age group was projected to be among those 75 and older—an increase of 26.2 percent or a gain of nearly 4.5 million (U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1988).
In Injury in America (1985, p. 43) the authors stated that “Almost no current research deals with the mechanisms and prevention of injury from falls (the leading cause of non-fatal injury) . . . . Little is known about the effectiveness of energy-absorbing materials, either worn by persons at high risk or incorporated in the surfaces onto which they fall.”
Typically, current approaches to solving the problem of injury from falls include devices which use composite matting to absorb energy resulting from patient/floor impact during falls. For example, U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,636,577, 4,557,475, 4,727,697, 4,846,457, 4,948,116, 4,991,834 and 4,998,717, each describe impact absorbing coverings which utilize air-filled cells or compressible materials to absorb the energy of a fall. Because each of these systems is always compliant (i.e., always deformable under compressive pressures), shoes, feet, and/or other contacts with the flooring surface results in relatively large mat deflections. This has the potential to increase the likelihood of falls due to toe/mat interference during foot swing, and/or presents a problem when an individual attempts to move an object over the floor (e.g., a wheelchair). These factors can be of even greater concern in a health care setting, where many residents may have an unsteady gait and/or utilize wheel chairs for locomotion.
The disclosed floor overcomes at least some of the above-described disadvantages inherent with various apparatuses and methods of the prior art. The example floor includes a flooring system which requires no special clothing or restriction of movement because the floor will act as the injury prevention system. The design incorporates a stiffened floor which remains substantially rigid under normal conditions and deflects under impact (i.e., a pressure greater than a predetermined critical pressure) to absorb the energy of the impact. Accordingly, the example floor offers a novel and effective system to reduce injuries from falls.